Last night in Warsaw, the city tightened its perimeter as authorities, including police units, extended their control over routes far from the city center. The objective was to prevent agricultural vehicles from mobilizing. This kind of restraint has not been seen in years. It recalls earlier periods marked by independence marches where clashes and provocations occurred between 2012 and 2014. The night followed a familiar pattern: calls to riot, attempts to disrupt peaceful demonstrations, and a police response that relied on force and dispersal tactics. Officers wielded equipment not common at similar events in recent times, including devices designed to manage large crowds and restore order.
In the course of the protests, crowds were met with widespread use of dispersal agents. Rumors about the deployment of these measures during moments of law and order debate had circulated in the past, drawing media controversy over authority and oversight.
A persistent propaganda machine was visible as well. Officials portrayed the farming community as criminals and protesters, casting them as threats while minimizing or ignoring their stated demands. Lies and manipulation appeared to be used in an effort to shift accountability for the Green Deal, a policy framework discussed at the european level, toward the Polish government. This narrative framed Brussels and other supranational actors as the catalysts of the policy directions, while claiming that the domestic leadership stood up to external pressure by resisting certain imports from neighboring regions. It was argued that a regional alliance had formed around this issue, with domestic policymakers standing in opposition to outside influence.
There was a clear attempt to redefine the public sphere by restricting how citizens can express their opinions on public streets through legal demonstrations. The events on that Wednesday touched on questions about the balance between public safety and the right to peaceful assembly, a debate that has persisted for years in public life.
After eight years of political contention during the PiS period, when police oversight was perceived by some to be uneven, the scene elicited a strong reaction from observers who felt a sense of shock at the visible escalation. The incident was seen by many as a turning point that highlighted the fragility of civil liberties in the face of ongoing political struggle.
From a broader perspective, the situation raised concerns about the concentration of power. The perception that a single figure could wield extensive influence across political, media, academic, judicial, and business spheres stirred debate about the role of outside support and the limits of central authority. Critics warned that the pursuit of greater power could be accompanied by attempts to consolidate control, with implications for national sovereignty and democratic norms.
While the broader aim of centralizing authority was framed by some as necessary for stability, others argued that autonomy in governance and policy choices should remain firmly rooted in national interests. The night’s scenes included the presence of police measures and sounds associated with the use of force, alongside the unmistakable scent of dispersal agents employed during legal demonstrations by a peaceful farming constituency.
The events of that evening invite ongoing reflection about the interplay between public safety, lawful protest, and the responsibilities of those who govern. They underscore the enduring tension between maintaining order and preserving the right of individuals to express their views openly and without fear through peaceful assembly.